Draft Summary: This workshop emphasized the vital importance
of water and the need for a general consensus that access to clean,
healthy, and adequate water is a basic human right -- individual
and collective. In the context of this basic human rights issue,
this workshop discussed the opportunity to build bridges with the
international human rights community (such as the special rapporteurs
of the Human Rights Commission), the world's religious communities,
and others about the importance of water.

The workshop explored a number of country-specific examples of
dealing with the challenges of water protection, water allocation,
and water management and then discussed opportunities for INECE
to advance global efforts. Specifically, the workshop felt that
the core competencies of INECE should be targeted to water issues
in several important ways. First, all (or most) INECE activities
and products (such as indicators, conference programs, and training
materials) can feature water examples.

Additionally, and importantly, two major competencies of INECE
were featured: compliance and enforcement expertise and networking
capabilities. The workshop recommends that INECE bring its compliance
and enforcement expertise to bear on the full range of water issues,
going beyond water quality/pollution to include integrated water
management, water allocation, and long-term water planning (including
related land use planning). The participants observed that compliance
and enforcement tend to be more fully developed in the pollution
area and that overall water management programs need special attention.

The workshop also recommends that INECE bring its networking expertise
to the water area in several ways. These include improving the
dialogue with the human rights community, serving as an information
repository for best practices in the water standard setting
and integrated water management planning areas, and providing available
information about privatization of water supply, wastewater
treatment, and other high-value water issues..

Draft Summary: The work group opened the session by framing
the definition of vessel pollution. It includes: 1. accidental oil
spills; and 2. waste generated on board and discharged from the
ship in violation of international treaty, such as MARPOL.

Canada has concluded that its Atlantic Coast suffers an amount
of oil discharge equivalent to the Exxon Valdez annually. Canada
has proposed legislative amendments to its migratory bird treaty
act to extend its jurisdictional reach up to the Exclusive Economic
Zone (200 miles). The proposed bill allows enforcing authorities
to board ships in this zone. It also mandates that all ports have
adequate facilities to accept waste from ships.

The work group then focused its attention on what's working to
control vessel pollution, the challenges enforcement officials confront,
and recommendations for improving the effective enforcement of vessel
pollution.

What's working
1. There is an existing treaty, MARPOL, which establishes the base.
2. In most countries, domestic laws have been passed to implement
MARPOL.
3. There have been some prosecutions and appropriate sentences.
4. There is international interest, as well as efforts like Interpol's
Project Clean Seas.
5. There is massive public support.

Challenges
1. There is a powerful worldwide industry coupled with a long history
of ineffective self-regulation.
2. There is limited, or no, flag state enforcement.
3. Most discharges occur on the high seas, making them difficult
to detect.
4. Evidence is hard to gather.
5. Investigations can be expensive, especially if they involve holding
ships at port.
6. Training of ships' crews on best management practices is inadequate.
7. There is a lack of adequate disposal facilities at ports.

Recommendations for INECE
1. Strengthen domestic laws everywhere, especially addressing extending
jurisdiction to the Exclusive Economic Zone and strengthening extradition
treaties, whistleblowing provisions, and criminal culpability of
captains, corporate officers, directors, and agents.
2. Improve evidence gathering -- like use of satellite technology
and sharing of information.
3. Build capacity for investigators and regulators.
4. Facilitate information sharing -- including data bases and information
on leads.
5. Develop best practices manual for investigations.
6. Participate at the International Maritime Organization.
7. Promote the increased availability of on-shore disposal facilities.
8. Eliminate the concept of flag states of convenience.
9. The most important recommendation, according to the group, is
public education. Partner with NGOs concerned with wildlife and
pollution to develop a strategic public relations and education
campaign to alert people to the massive scope of the problem.

Draft Summary: The workshop began with brief presentations
by the facilitators. Following the presentations, the workshop participants
discussed the challenges of limiting illegal trade in hazardous
wastes.

There was a consensus about the importance of the problem of wastes,
both general and hazardous. There is a difference in awareness,
with countries of the European Union and North America relatively
aware of their problems and with many other countries unsure if
they have a problem, because many of the waste imports and exports
are not known. There was consensus that the problem of wastes is
a common problem, and therefore everybody subscribed to the necessity
of exchanging information. There should also be a greater awareness
of the problem worldwide. We have to convince our governments and
parliaments about the importance this problem and emphasize that
there are efforts to craft a long term solution.

For the short term, there are some needs as well. In the first
place, the group stipulated that we can put a lot of effort into
several kind of databases, but that will take years. Therefore,
we recommend just starting at several points in the world. Analyze
the main problems for a country or a region and choose a focal point,
and then spread the knowledge gained. Other methods for starting
are to make shared inspections and to develop best practices.

Of course there is always the problem of definitions, but the workshop
concluded that a lot can be done without harmonized definitions.

The workshop recommended that INECE develop a start-up kit (a toolbox)
for countries that want to pick up the problem. INECE should also
work to raise awareness of the problem around the world. Although
we know there will be many challenges in managing the waste issue
via INECE, we can be more outspoken to the world and to the media
about successes. We do not recommend using "naming and shaming"
at this stage of development; the workshop feels it is too early
for this method.

Draft Summary: This workshop explored building capacity
for compliance and enforcement in developing countries with regard
to the Montreal Protocol; methods for keeping enforcement communities
in developed countries engaged in the late stages of implementation;
and appropriate roles for INECE.

Recommendations for the role for INECE included:

INECE should look into how monitoring how much laws are being
implemented. The key question is to ask, and this is a prerequisite
for enforcement and compliance.

There is a need to consider cultural issues in setting up infrastructure
to delivering environmental outcomes.

Consider a cultural noncompliance: INECE cannot be prescriptive,
but it can put people together to help provide assistance.

INECE might want to look at the outcome as the indicator, not
the tool, so as to account for cultural and governmental differences.

Draft Summary: The workshop facilitators began the discussion
by asking: (1) What role can INECE play in developing a consistent
world-wide trading scheme of GHG emissions? and (2) What can INECE
do to deliver this?

Participants recommended the following general roles for INECE:
Raise awareness and provide information and clarification;
Serve as a resource on emission trading activities in different
countries; Establish links with other parties involved (accreditation
bodies, UNFCCC, IMPEL, etc.); Aim for a balance on general consistency
and flexibility in international trading schemes

Given INECE's character, the group decided to focus the discussion
on actions that were beyond the law and that had international repercussions.
The group felt that any efforts in the realm of illegal logging
that INECE engages in should be limited to targeting large companies
that are logging illegally, and whose actions have implications
beyond local borders.

The group's concrete proposal was for INECE to hold a workshop
on illegal logging enforcement. In the context of INECE, there has
never been and international gathering of enforcement experts dealing
with illegal logging issues. INECE potentially has the capacity
to translate its brown side enforcement knowledge to green issues
(for instance, can negotiated compliance agreements that work for
pollution also work in the forest sector?) Some ideas about how
the workshop should be structured were made:

(1) Around 30 participants, coming from enforcement agencies, ministries,
and large NGOs involved in logging enforcement.
(2) Participants should come from both producer and consumer countries
(3) There was some debate about what the criteria for selecting
participants should be - the group members offered to come up with
lists of suggested criteria and potential participants to INECE

Draft Summary: Varied experiences demonstrate that there
is inadequate judicial understanding of environmental law, but UNEP
is actively helping build world-wide capacity. Finland and IMPEL
have had seminars for judges and prosecutors and the numbers of
court cases have subsequently increased. Some agencies do not have
experience in seeking criminal cases or civil penalties, while others
have dedicated courts or tribunals and prosecutor units. Others
have effectively utilized administrative courts. Some innovative
judgments include "publication orders" and "environmental
service orders."

The various aspects of environmental harm and economic benefit
are important to prove, as well as the intent of defendant, to help
the judge determine the adequacy of the penalty. We should share
best practices for calculating penalties and develop methodologies
in advance. The international exchange of information among countries
can help develop and strengthen national programs.

More judicial education and support is necessary, and UNEP's work
including the judicial training center in Cairo helps meet this
need. Countries should consider establishing specialized courts
or a mechanism to share information among judges and develop individual
expertise. Chief judges and trained judges should help promote the
issue to their colleagues to establish credibility in the message,
and INECE should help by spreading the information. Prosecutors
must be included in the process, both as experts and to improve
their own skills. Recognition of excellence is an outstanding motivation,
and INECE could create an international award for judicial excellence.
Finally, we should seek harmonized approaches in penalties and remedies,
particularly for transboundary crimes, so all countries could show
the fairness and consistency of their penalty structures.

Draft Summary: The workshop began with an explanation of
the UNEP-INECE indicator project, which focuses on identifying indicators
to promote synergies in the implementation of two clusters of topic-related
MEAs - one cluster on biodiversity conventions and one on chemical
conventions. There was also a preliminary discussion of the definitions
of input, output, intermediate outcome, and final outcome indicators.

Participants in the workshop offered a variety of concerns and
suggestions, including: (1) it is important to have department heads
and decision-makers with a strong interest in doing the project;
(2) many departments are involved in the implementation of MEAs,
and they do not always coordinate well (or at all) with each other;
(3) starting data collection with the MEA Secretariats could provide
contacts and focal points in target countries; (4) the implementation
plan required by many MEAs could be a good source of information;
(5) consider who the ultimate audience is for the indicators; (6)
consider at what level of the implementation process we are looking
for synergies, and how focused on a sector you want to get; (7)
consider creating a body or committee to coordinate collection of
all the data.

Suggestions from the group for input indicators included: (1) number
of personnel charged with implementation of MEAs, (2) stakeholder
identification, (3) number of violations, (4) number of focal points,
(5) whether there is support from a high level in the implementing
authority, (6) whether and how often non-environmental agencies
mention MEAs in their documentation and efforts, (7) financial sources,
allocation, and sustainability for compliance and enforcement, (8)
whether there is an authority with a clearly delegated responsibility
to implement and also to report on the MEA; (9) whether the country
has developed and implemented a strategic plan with an associated
budget and timeline for implementation of the MEA; (10) whether
national legislation, regulations, and/or standards were changed
after MEA ratification; (11) amount of technical resources and equipment,
and amount of technical assistance and training; (12) whether there
is an institutional requirement for horizontal and vertical communication;
(13) level of capacity building within institution, the number of
trainings, and whether there is support coming from outside organizations
(e.g., the World Bank) for capacity building; (14) an index of some
sort to correlate requirements to be met with staff and resources
available to meet them; (15) whether the country has a review process.

Suggestions for output indicators included: (1) the number of inspections,
instances of violations, enforcement cases, permits, prosecutions,
and convictions; (2) the quality of inspections; (3) amount of information
collected and disseminated by the focal point; (4) amount of cooperation
with other stakeholders that enforce aspects of MEAs; (5) development
of a national implementation plan and enforcement strategy; (6)
whether there has been outreach to the regulated community and the
public; (7) amount of fines / penalties imposed and actually collected
and that remain at least in part with the environmental enforcement
agency; (8) whether the review process is used; (9) whether there
is a baseline against which to measure progress over time.